I think that the Dinos had a single, rear, fuel tank for most of 1958. The 1957 cars also had a left side tank. I can't recall any reference to a car having a right side tank but Ferrari modified the cars a lot during the year so anything is possible.

The drawing posted by Graham Gauld shows Collins' car from the Silverstone International Trophy. It was the small diameter tube frame introduced in 1958. This was apparently insufficiently rigid and most cars raced through 1958 had the 1957 frame with larget diameter longitudinal tubes. Lack of rigidity doesn't seem to have bothered collins at Silverstone.

The car in the drawing has disc brakes which would make it a late 1958 car. According to Casucci discs were first used on Hawthorn's car at the 1958 Italian GP.

Just had another look at the drawing and noticed that the car has low exhausts which would make it a 1959 car.

It is the 1958 machine, the exhausts curve up at cockpit level and finish a the the level of the top of the rear tyres. This exhaust arrangement was unique to the 1958 Dinos. Surely the car depicted in the drawing has the huge finned drum brakes. Discs (by Dunlop) were introduced for Monza, Mike Hawthorn being instrumental in having this modification carried out.The small-tube frame may have lacked in rigidity which would probably be a factor in the alleged harsh transition from understeer to oversteer which the 1958 Dinos suffered, certainly it was mentioneda lot after Collins' Pflanzgarten accident.I was only 10 at the time, but the cars I got to inspect fairly closely in the Norburgring paddock seemed to have had tail fuel tanks only. If I remember correctly, that is

By quoting Milan you seemed to think he was referring to that drawing, where his reference to low exhausts clearly indicates he was commenting on the drawing in Post 2

Que? The drawing in post 2 shows a car with drum brakes and high exhausts, just like the one in post 5. I think Milan is referring to a drawing in a book with which I am not familiar, not to either of the drawings shown in this thread.

The small-tube frame may have lacked in rigidity which would probably be a factor in the alleged harsh transition from understeer to oversteer which the 1958 Dinos suffered, certainly it was mentioneda lot after Collins' Pflanzgarten accident.

I believe that Collins' Nurburgring had a large tube frame.

Am I correct in believing that here is no evidence of a 1958 Ferrari with right side cockpit fuel tank?

If the number 3 is correct in the car depicted in post 5 then it must be either von Trips at Silverstone or Hawthorn at the Nurburgring (I think). It seems to have a small tube frame which rules out Hawthorn (I think).

As far as I can recall from work on my book about the Dinos, Jim Allington's drawing provided by Graham in Post 2 was prepared by Jim in the garage at Brackley in which the Ferrari team was based during the 1958 BRDC International Trophy meeting. It depicts the small tube frame variant as driven by Collins in that specific event. Jim took dozens of nutsy-boltsy detailed photographs from which to work up his drawing.

As far as I can recall from work on my book about the Dinos, Jim Allington's drawing provided by Graham in Post 2 was prepared by Jim in the garage at Brackley in which the Ferrari team was based during the 1958 BRDC International Trophy meeting. It depicts the small tube frame variant as driven by Collins in that specific event. Jim took dozens of nutsy-boltsy detailed photographs from which to work up his drawing.

In case Doug doesn't see this, or can't remember what he wrote al those years ago. he said that the first of the 1958 cars dispensed with cockpit fuel tankage and that, at the British Grand Prix Collins and von Trips had additional fuel tanks on the left side of the driving seat but Hawthorn didn't. This matches the theory that the car in post 5 is von Trips' Silverstone car.

It may also be worth mentioning that one car had the oil tank in the cockpit instead of at the extreme rear. This was the car built for the Monza 500, later converted to Formula 1 specification. It should be dentifiable as it had a shorter than normal tail and coil spring rear suspension,

Presumably the side tanks at Silverstone were to alter the weight distribution, rather than provide extra fuel capacity, as the British GP was some 38 miles shorter than the French GP, and the flat-out nature of Reims must have resulted in higher fuel consumption than at Silverstone.

As far as I can recall from work on my book about the Dinos, Jim Allington's drawing provided by Graham in Post 2 was prepared by Jim in the garage at Brackley in which the Ferrari team was based during the 1958 BRDC International Trophy meeting. It depicts the small tube frame variant as driven by Collins in that specific event. Jim took dozens of nutsy-boltsy detailed photographs from which to work up his drawing.

DCN

Jim had a huge collection of detail photographs, mostly stored as rolled-up, un-cut 35mm negs, kept in shallow boxes with egg-box style cardboard dividers. At one time I offered to archive them for him, as I didn't think this was the best way of storing them, but my offer was ignored. By far the most were his, I think, some may have been by David Phipps, I can't be sure of this. I wonder where they are now...

In his race report and Notes on the Cars, DSJ refers on occasion to "Houdaille vane-type shock absorbers", and on others to "regular Houdaille shock absorbers". Are these the same thing? Ferrari was also experimenting with Koni shock absorbers.

In his race report and Notes on the Cars, DSJ refers on occasion to "Houdaille vane-type shock absorbers", and on others to "regular Houdaille shock absorbers". Are these the same thing? Ferrari was also experimenting with Koni shock absorbers.

Houdailles were typically rotary shocks in prewar days, so I guess "vane-type" would be just another word for that. I have to admit to being somewhat surprised to see them still in action in the late fifties!

Ferrari provided effectively the last frontline refuge for so much crap technology it is truly amazing. The Houdaille dampers were vane or rotary lever-arm designs from way back. Phil Hill led the driver charge against them, and was convinced their failure was largely responsible for Peter Collins' death. They worked fine early in a race but would overheat and become ineffective by mid-race if hard pressed. The Nurburgring battered them into early submission. Ferrari used Borrani wire wheels in Formula 1 to the end of 1962, drum brakes on most cars to the end of 1958. The Old Man regarded the engine as paramount - the running gear as secondary - and the chassis as a bracket to hold it all together and provide a space where the bayonet-fitting driver could sit.

At Monaco, Hawthorn's car had a significantly longer cockpit area and, presumably, longer wheelbase. Does anyone know how much longer it was, and whether this applied at all races?

'Mon Ami Mate' has profile photos of both Hawthorn's and Collins' cars braking for the Mirabeau which clearly shows the difference - a bit of work with a ruler and calculator should provide the answer tonight. I think Hawthorn's car was used by him at every race - I doubt he could fit easily in any other of the team cars.

There are several cutaways of the 1958 246 in that thread but none provide any more info than the one re-posted.

'Mon Ami Mate' has profile photos of both Hawthorn's and Collins' cars braking for the Mirabeau which clearly shows the difference - a bit of work with a ruler and calculator should provide the answer tonight. I think Hawthorn's car was used by him at every race - I doubt he could fit easily in any other of the team cars.

There are several cutaways of the 1958 246 in that thread but none provide any more info than the one re-posted.

Paul M

This is the Hawthorn car at Monza in 1958 with its new Dunlop disc brakes, centre, whereas the other team cars had drums

I think Houdailles were rotary vane-type dampers, as opposed to providing linear vane-type damping. Their perceived advantage for racing use was their simple adjustability, something which 'aircraft-type' or telescopic dampers didn't offer in the '30s, '40s, early '50s when Houdailles became popular, and during which later period they were fitted more by custom than considered choice.

Enzo Ferrari remarked on the adjustability of the Houdailles in an interview in Motor Racing, July 1958. It was this article that contained James Allington's drawing of Collins' Silverstone car, posted above.

In Graham's photo, the car beyond Hawthorn's is, I think, Gendebien's, originally the 3-litre special built for the Monza 500. It was later converted to formula 1 spec and taken as spare car to the German Grand Prix where Hawthorn drove it in practice. It differed in several respects from the other cars, including telescopic rear shocks and the oil tank in the cockpit instead of at the extreme rear. It would be interesting to know its wheelbase.

Scaling from the side-on photos of JMH's and PJC's cars at Monaco in 'Mon Ami Mate' indicates that Hawthorn's car had a wheelbase longer by about 50mm, assuming Collins' car had the original stated w/b for a 246 of 2160mm.

As long as the position of the cars is fairly similar, as in the angle on the ground plane, and there is not too much forshortening, it is usually fairly straghtforward to caculate these things. All you need is a constant, such as the diametre of a wheel. I'm not familiar with the photographs in question.

Tony is absolutely right. Once you get used to basing assessments only on photographs which broadly match, in terms of lens focal length as well as positioning of the subject car, scaling off such images is actually very effective. I used it first way back in my model-making career in the early 1960s, and most recently in the case of George Daniels' wonderful old GP Itala. Its wheelbase measured in the metal was longer than the figure quoted from the ACF scrutineering records. This worried the wotsit out of me until I noticed a difference in perceived proportion between Itala's two senior team cars, for Alessandro Cagno and Henri Fournier, and the third entry for Giovanni Piacenza.

I found three well matched negs of the cars, side-on, and scaled off their wheelbases using a tyre sidewall height as the constant. I think the wheelbase worked out to 14 times the sidewall height for the first two cars but, sure enough, 15 times the sidewall height for Piacenza's. So all three cars most definitely did not comply with the wheelbase length declared, by inference, for all three team cars.

I then checked the weigh-in records, and sure enough Piacenza's car was not only substantially heavier than its two shorter-wheelbase, smaller-chassis, sisters - it was also the heaviest car in the entire entry. The photo evidence was supported there by the weigh-in figures. In the photographs the Piacenza car simply looked longer through the cockpit area. Measuring it out against its sisters settled the issue.

I'm glad you agree, Doug! My only slight concern about using tyre sidewall or overall tyre measurement is that a few discrepancies can creep in. However, I'm nit-picking, as at the degree of accuracy in this kind of scaling probably doesn't warrent anything else. I'm just used to using wheel diametres.

With photographs the clarity of those in Mon Ami Mate, I think you'd do very well to measure to within 1/2mm. This is equivalent to about 2% in the size of the Dino's wheels which gives rise to a similar potential error in the dimensions of the original car. In using the above methods there are four measurements involved, each with a potential margin of error. In all, I think it's very optimistic to expect a level of accuracy in the final result of less than 5%. This translates to about 100mm in the wheelbase of the Dino. As this is double the claimed difference between the two cars I remain doubtful.

I've been through Doug's Dino book, his article in Historic Race and Rally, Pierre Abeillon's article in Automobile Historique, the Tanner/Nye Ferrari tome, all of DSJ's race reports and Notes on the Cars and Champion Year and I found no mention of Hawthorn's car having a loger wheelbase. I've also looked at a number of photographs and found nothing conclusive. The ones in Mon Ami Mate are suggestive but the impression may be heightened by Hawthorn's aero screen.

I am well aware of the inaccuracy likely from photos - the ones in MAM appear to have been taken from the same place and height (unless the photographer stepped forward into the road or climbed a stepladder!) and I used the distances between the wheel spinner centres and the relative position of the top of the aeroscreen as my reference measurements.

The impression of greater length giving rise to the comments with the photos in the book is, as Roger says, distorted by Hawthorn not having a wrap-around screen, but the distance from the back of the engine cover to the aeroscreen appears to be greater in proportion. However we know all the bodies were hand-made and individual in shape (the tail tanks look different in the photos, as an example) so every dimension may have been different.

The only other relevant fact is that in previous years with Ferrari, whenever Hawthorn took over or tried a team-mate's car he couldn't fit in it properly, being about 4" taller than the next tallest driver.

As an aside the 1959 cars had a given wheelbase of 2220mm, 60mm longer than that of the 1958 cars - possibly coincidence or possibly not. Maybe JMH's car was 60mm longer.....

Since it was scrapped none of us are likely to find the definitive answer - I was just doing my best to suggest an answer to a question (see TNF inquisition, etc!)

Where scaling from photographs works best is in confirming differences between 'sister' cars. Don't just look at JMH's 246, compare his car to its contemporary sisters. Then it does become quite interesting. And from my long experience of working from original photographs it can provide surprisingly accurate dimensional proof. Those who conclude otherwise are just, plain, wrong. Initial photographic quality is, of course, critical. If you happen to have access to an original visible (measurable) component, such as a hub nut, that helps too...

But as with so many things in life, don't knock it if you haven't tried it.

Where scaling from photographs works best is in confirming differences between 'sister' cars. Don't just look at JMH's 246, compare his car to its contemporary sisters. Then it does become quite interesting. And from my long experience of working from original photographs it can provide surprisingly accurate dimensional proof. Those who conclude otherwise are just, plain, wrong. Initial photographic quality is, of course, critical. If you happen to have access to an original visible (measurable) component, such as a hub nut, that helps too...

But as with so many things in life, don't knock it if you haven't tried it.

DCN

I use a similar method to do this and find the results very accurate; however I do it in a physical sense.

If you convert the image to a slide or overhead projection sheet, you can project the image onto a screen or background and adjust the focal start point to a position relative to where the camera was when the shot was taken, the only assumption you cannot make is that the ground was level when the shot was taken, that can be adjusted by tilting the projector.

Once you have the image projecting you make a template of a known component, I have only ever used a wheel, but any major/large part would do, you place that template/component in the shot so it matches the position in the image. Of course the bigger the piece the better the result. An I beam axle would be really easy as it has lots of reference points in one plane.

I then use a plumb blob to drop a position onto a level plane. The floor of my patio actually. Once I have a reference point to start from and that’s has been the wheel centre, I proceed to drop points off the part I’m trying to measure. Be careful if you try this as it is only one dimensional when you do it and the pickup point has to be in the correct focus. I did my racing car first and projected over it an image from the 1950's to see how accurate it was and you can go within millimeters of an accurate result. Up close images are the best and in focus is a help, albeit long shots have a better focal depth.

Try it one dark night in the back yard on your own car its quite an exercise in thought process.

I've never tried it, but intuitively I feel you must measure dimensions in the same direction to eliminate any distortion from foreshortening. Even a 'side on' shot may be slightly angled and a shot of a moving car with a focal plane shutter camera will introduce another distortion. But as you are measuring relative dimensions if the reference wheel diameter is measured parallel to the ground, ie in the same direction as the wheelbase, the distortion effect will be minimised.

I've never tried it, but intuitively I feel you must measure dimensions in the same direction to eliminate any distortion from foreshortening. Even a 'side on' shot may be slightly angled and a shot of a moving car with a focal plane shutter camera will introduce another distortion. But as you are measuring relative dimensions if the reference wheel diameter is measured parallel to the ground, ie in the same direction as the wheelbase, the distortion effect will be minimised.

Whilst Im not a rocket scientist I found it a simple thing to do, one important thing I did learn was to use the back wheel as the reference point. It can be reasonably assumed that it is pointing straight ahead, and the front wheels are often turned on some incline so they can play tricks on you, but you can orient the front wheel to reflect this. That way you get a reasonable estimation of wheel base. KPI will alter the wheel base number. If it’s a mobile shot going down a straight well you can pretty well assume that it’s correct. Variation between front and rear track poses some difficulty too. It’s rare that the photo will give the rear wheel base. The important point you make is that you must drop the measurement to the same plane. You can do it vertically and horizontally too. Some tricks that help. Hopefully the bonnet centre line is in the middle of the car so that gives a really good vertical check point but remember it’s got to be done in the same plane so you have to reference it from one side of the car to the other on the floor. A spirit level on a base works I found. In the end I made some wheels for a vertical post painted white and wheeled it around and put a pencil mark on it to establish the height of each pick up point. God knows what the neighbors thought when the saw the lights on the patio in the wee small hours!!

Looking through Piero Casucci's book here, Ferrari F1 1948-1963, there is an unattributed cutaway in his Dino 246 1958 chapter which sems to show tanks on left and right sides, plus the tail tanks. Nothing is specifically mentioned about them by year, but for 1960 he says
" .... for 1960 independent rear suspension was officially adopted and an improvement was sought for the weight distribution of the 246 by going back to side tanks, leaving the one in the tail for fuel reserve and oil. For the same reason the engine was moved back 25cms.; moreover, it was offset in the opposite direction, angled from left to right passing to the right of the driving seat. The gearbox lever was moved to the left..."
Does that help at all?
I am happy to scan and post the cutaway if it helps, for relevant education and explanatory purposes. The car faces left to right and slopes downwards about 10/15 degrees, if that helps with recognition.
Roger Lund

The 246/60 most definitely had pannier tanks available to fit on both sides with a reduced-capacity fuel tank in the tail. But I thought the question was about the 246/58? From the photographic evidence I am not sure it did often use side tanks - if at all - relying upon the large tail tank instead. But I haven't had time to review all pix of all cars in every outing. Does my book on the Dinos help? (No, don't expect me to have retained all the detail so many years after researching it).

None of the cutaways I have seen of the '58 car (and there are several on the cutaways thread) show a right-side tank.

In Jonathan Thompson's book on the F1 cars there is a tail-on view of Hawthorn's car taken at Monza from dead centre, clearly showing the engine angling to the left, the steering-wheel being offset slightly to the right, and the gearchange gate being right where a right-side tank would be - not conclusive in any way, but a clue.

And in Chapter XII of 'Champion Year' Mike says "My car having a slightly longer chassis, two or three inches longer to give my large frame a bt more room...." (to drift over to the other point again.)

Thanks for the reference to Champion Year. I looked through the book but missed that.

Doug's Dino book mentions some cars having left side cockpit tanks on occasion, see post 18, but not right side. That book, and his article in Historic Race and Rally magazine are the best accounts I know of the development of these cars.